Support NeoGAF

[infinitys_7th]

https://www.apnews.com/45e28f10baa2460fb17a0b101c366067

Investors and China watchers welcomed President Xi Jinping's pledge Tuesday to open his country's market wider to foreign competition, hoping it will ease a trade dispute with Washington that has unsettled financial markets and could jeopardize a global economic expansion.

Xi's vow to cut Chinese auto tariffs, allow more competition in banking and better protect intellectual property calmed investors who have been on edge since the world's two biggest economies last week announced plans to slap tariffs on $50 billion worth of each other's products.

Stock markets rallied worldwide on optimism for relief from what has become the most high-stakes trade confrontation since World War II. The Dow Jones industrial average was up more than 400 points in early afternoon trading.

"This is a promising signal that there can be a path forward to address (America's) concerns without a full-on trade war emerging," said Stephen Ezell, vice president of global innovation policy at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a think tank that has criticized both China's aggressive trade practices and President Donald Trump's confrontational response to them.

At the same time, Ezell and other longtime China observers cautioned that Beijing has promised in the past to open its market and curb hardball tactics to acquire foreign technology without following through on those pledges.

"This is positive, but we need to see action," Ezell said.

Xi said Beijing will "significantly lower" tariffs on auto imports this year and ease rules that limit foreign global automakers to owning no more than 50 percent of joint ventures in China.

He promised to encourage "normal technological exchange" and "protect the lawful ownership rights of foreign enterprises."

Rajiv Biswas, an economist at IHS Markit, said, "This would be a victory for the world trading system and an important step away from the abyss of rising global protectionism."

The dispute is likely to end "with a concession from China," said Larry Hu of Macquarie Group in a report.

Skeptics pointed out that China has made promises before and then not adhered to them.

Of course, if they don't adhere to them, the next 3 to 7 years will leave the threat of tariffs hanging over their head again. Actual free trade negotiation is winning out against nebulous, shadowy agreements like TPP.

 

[Vicetrailia]

TPP is free trade negotiation and would have been huge for the U.S. We would have won so hard that if countries like China were forced to join it'd give us tremendous advantages that all of that above pales to in comparison. But alas, it had downsides for everyone else like giving the U.S. too much influence. It would have hurt China a lot.

But when we pulled out other countries made it work for them by taking out the key things that we wanted.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

TPP is free trade negotiation and would have been huge for the U.S. We would have won so hard that if countries like China were forced to join it'd give us tremendous advantages that all of that above pales to in comparison. But alas, it had downsides for everyone else like giving the U.S. too much influence. It would have hurt China a lot.

But when we pulled out other countries made it work for them by taking out the key things that we wanted.

How would it have been huge?

At best, it would've added maybe 1-3 months worth of economic growth more than otherwise if you don't account for the fact most of the TPP wasn't about lowering trade barriers because they're already low.

It was a obvious scheme to line the pockets of multinationals, protect investors, and raise trade barriers on knowledge via copyright and patents. It was a flimsy proxy to push a dubious geopolitical agenda to contain the Chinese. The environmental and labor protections wouldn't be enforced as the historical record shows.

Pres. Trump was 100% right to say hell no to TPP unless there's a better deal. Nothing wrong with putting America first.

 

[Vicetrailia]

How would it have been huge?

At best, it would've added maybe 1-3 months worth of economic growth more than otherwise if you don't account for the fact most of the TPP wasn't about lowering trade barriers because they're already low.

It was a obvious scheme to line the pockets of multinationals, protect investors, and raise trade barriers on knowledge via copyright and patents. It was a flimsy proxy to push a dubious geopolitical agenda to contain the Chinese. The environmental and labor protections wouldn't be enforced as the historical record shows.

Pres. Trump was 100% right to say hell no to TPP unless there's a better deal. Nothing wrong with putting America first.

Yes trade barriers are already low, but it especially benefitted corps with its IP binding protections. It put pressure on China. It's very advantageous for the US on the power dynamics scale.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw1T-ejaOfKXRXptYTi7pNs6

Trump is considering getting back into TPP, although the things that benefitted the US the most won't come back.

It had worker protections that you can read about, but TPP imho is more political.

Edit: Actually I'm wrong, the US provisions are suspended. Also:



Thanks Obama.

 

[llien]

Interesting that UK was (and still is?) considering similar move: 'Hard' Brexit offers '£135bn annual boost' to economy

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Yes trade barriers are already low, but it especially benefitted corps with its IP binding protections. It put pressure on China. It's very advantageous for the US on the power dynamics scale.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw1T-ejaOfKXRXptYTi7pNs6

Trump is considering getting back into TPP, although the things that benefitted the US the most won't come back.

It had worker protections that you can read about, but TPP imho is more political.

Edit: Actually I'm wrong, the US provisions are suspended. Also:



Thanks Obama.

Do you really believe raising trade barriers on knowledge (critical to economic growth), expanding the ISDS system, and creating new business-friendly regulations will contain China? That it will lead to notable economic growth for the US? That it will put a lot of money in your pocket instead of the executives at Microsoft, Pfizer, or say Disney? It doesn't benefit you or the economy overall. It offsets the positives.

China is already the world's second or top economy depending on how you measure it via their heavy state-directed approach. If anyone missed it, they're already extremely successful doing it their way. You can't contain them with a "free trade" agreement that isn't even about lowering trade barriers. Only bad decision-making on their part can stop the momentum. Instead of bad schemes like the TPP to enrich professionals and big business, why not just embrace the reality of the situation? Your current stance just erodes your credibility and leads to the election of Pres. Trump. I mean if Pres. Trump has to be the one to stand up for the people as a real estate mogul, then you know America is in trouble. Virtually no one in charge cares about the people who matter anymore.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Do you really believe raising trade barriers on knowledge (critical to economic growth), expanding the ISDS system, and creating new business-friendly regulations will contain China? That it will lead to notable economic growth for the US? That it will put a lot of money in your pocket instead of the executives at Microsoft, Pfizer, or say Disney? It doesn't benefit you or the economy overall. It offsets the positives.

China is already the world's second or top economy depending on how you measure it via their heavy state-directed approach. If anyone missed it, they're already extremely successful doing it their way. You can't contain them with a "free trade" agreement that isn't even about lowering trade barriers. Only bad decision-making on their part can stop the momentum. Instead of bad schemes like the TPP to enrich professionals and big business, why not just embrace the reality of the situation? Your current stance just erodes your credibility and leads to the election of Pres. Trump. I mean if Pres. Trump has to be the one to stand up for the people as a real estate mogul, then you know America is in trouble. Virtually no one in charge cares about the people who matter anymore.

You didn't ask me what I believed, I'm just explaining the political aspect. Btw it did establish relationships with countries in the asia-pacific, and since China wasn't included in the negotiations, they would lose some power there. I'm especially against TPP because I like generic drugs, and I don't want US pharmaceutical companies dictating anything, trying to make drugs more expensive for everyone. Arbitration too.

While we can't contain China, we can profit off of them more (global companies are already making gobs of money off China) with the IP bullshit, and influence Asia more.

Trump doesn't know what is up from down, what is left from right, and he's more self-preserving than anyone, so I wouldn't go there about him "standing up for the people" because he's the opposite. He didn't like TPP because he ran anti-Obama as his audience loved, that's it. That's the simple truth. Now he's using Obama to make his base warm up to TPP by saying he'll do it better because it'll help the U.S politically.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

You didn't ask me what I believed, I'm just explaining the political aspect. Btw it did establish relationships with countries in the asia-pacific, and since China wasn't included in the negotiations, they would lose some power there. I'm especially against TPP because I like generic drugs, and I don't want US pharmaceutical companies dictating anything, trying to make drugs more expensive for everyone. Arbitration too.

While we can't contain China, we can profit off of them more (global companies are already making gobs of money off China) with the IP bullshit, and influence Asia more.

Trump doesn't know what is up from down, what is left from right, and he's more self-preserving than anyone, so I wouldn't go there about him "standing up for the people" because he's the opposite. He didn't like TPP because he ran anti-Obama as his audience loved, that's it. That's the simple truth. Now he's using Obama to make his base warm up to TPP by saying he'll do it better because it'll help the U.S politically.

Why do you use "we"? If a multinational gets developing countries to pay more for key software or medical equipment how does that make the economy overall better off? If the price of a notable drug is marked up by a factor of 100 how does that make you richer? Walk me through how more money for them = more wealth and comfort for you. I don't understand in an era where companies have no allegiance to their country that you care if an American company's profits are higher vs. Toyota or say Tencent. So what.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that the politics associated with a trade agreement like the TPP is not free. The proposed trade barriers on knowledge, business-friendly regulations, and handouts to investors cost real money and time. Likely a lot more than a month or so worth of GDP by 2030 when a deal like this goes into full effect.

Finally, how does China lose power if a big trading partner (US) or say the Asian region in general gets richer? Let's pretend the TPP grows the US economy by a lot over time or Vietnam/Malaysia became a 1st world nation after entering a deal like TPP. China is in deep trouble because your living standards are higher than they were before? Their economy will crumble because of rule of origin tariffs? One of the most powerful countries on the planet is going to fade into the abyss because America built "relationships"? Yawn.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Why do you use "we"? If a multinational gets developing countries to pay more for key software or medical equipment how does that make the economy overall better off? If the price of a notable drug is marked up by a factor of 100 how does that make you richer? Walk me through how more money for them = more wealth and comfort for you. I don't understand in an era where companies have no allegiance to their country that you care if an American company's profits are higher vs. Toyota or say Tencent. So what.

I agree with you, but I don't think it's that important to be precise about it right now.

Finally, how does China lose power if a big trading partner (US) or say the Asian region in general gets richer?

Because "we" are making a deal that affects their neighboring partners without their input. This means that new global economy rules close to home are getting written under our U.S. interests predominantly, and not theirs. Now China is massive and will end up extending their influence other ways, but TPP will definitely have influence dynamics. It's best if China joins TPP, but that requires reform on their part. As you said we cannot contain China nor do we have the desire to, we need to cooperate.